You're referring to the multi-role vs specialized thing? Drove me nuts over the years (yes, that's what did it) how they waffled back and forth on that. The F-4 was too generalized, so everyone wanted sepcialized a/c - hence, in the 70s, the F-15 as an air superiority-specific aircraft, the A-10 as a ground support ship, and the F-16 "lightweight fighter" (which, I guess, ended up being the generalized jack-of-all-trades, alhough it started out as an interceptor). And in the USN, the F-14 designed as strictly an air-to-air fleet defender while the A-6s continued on as bomb trucks. Next thing ya know the age of specialization gets fuzzy as "not a pound for air-to-ground" F-15s evolve into "Strike Eagles" with more bombload than five B-17s, Tomcats become Bombcats, and the little loser YF-17 becomes the big-ass general-purpose "Attack Fighter" F/A-18! Some chuckleheads start saying the F-16 at 600 kts would also make a better FAC and ground-supporter than the A-10 at 200 kts () which, thankfully, got blown out of the water when they tried it. What happened to specialization and the lessons learned with the F-4 40 years ago? So the F-22 is developed as a pure air superiority machine, and I say thank god someone regained their senses - and the next thing you know they're talking about swapping out the AIM-120s in the belly bay for small-diameter bombs, and some dickhead actually wants to rename the aircraft "F/A-22" The F-35 is in development as an F-16 replacement, with acceptable air-to-air capability but with the stress on air-to-ground. Yet I actually read that some twats in congress suggested that, well, if the F-35 is so good at EVERYthing, why not cancel the F-22 and just build F-35s? Ya CAN'T build one plane that's good at EVERYthing (well, except the P-47). F-22s should be doing what they're designed to do best - flying top cover for the F-35s while they do what they're supposed to do best, blow shit up on the ground. I suppose specializing is less desireable in an age of penny-pinching (and goddamn Cheny), but I wish these fools would make up their minds and stop making every defense acquisition a ping-pong game.
I always wondered how the 14, 15, 16, & 18 fit into our national defense program, and more importantly, why the AF never flew the Tomcat. I mean, that sucker is a mean fucking interceptor, no?
I wonder if the trend towards versatility is due to the complete air superiority we've enjoyed for so long. Our most successful air to air fighter, the F-15, has something like a 110-0 record to it's credit. Considering how long it's been in service, and given that a lot of those kills are credited to other air forces, that's not a whole lot of action. Especially if you put it in the historical contex of WWII, Korea, or Vietnam.
The F-14 was very seriously considered for USAF use. In the end they decided to go with the F-15, largely based on not wanting to use a USN product. Inter-service rivalry and all that. Bottom line is aside from the F-22 there is nothing in the world I'd rather be in a fight or war than the F-14D.
The best. But keep in mind it was designed 100% from the start to be a carrier aircraft. Beefier landing gear, stronger airframe, etc, etc. There's a lot of extra weight on the plane that a land-based version wouldn't need, and the AF would consider wasteful. An AF version would have to be a complete redesign.
The place will only be up for conquest by the fanatics next door only if you and others like you get your way and we run from Iraq with our tails between our legs. Right now we have the center of the board that is the middle east and anyone will tell you the center is the place to be.
Interesting question about the A-10. It really illustrates the struggle between the ground support/dogfighting/high altitude high speed bombing factions of the Air Force. If you're interested in a Vietnam era recounting of that struggle, you might try to find a book called "Air Commando One" about the ragtag Air Force guerilla squadron that used B-26's to pound the living shit out of the Ho Chi Minh Trail. The low and slow techniques they used were perfect for that theater, but the Big Brass were obsessed with the "high/faster" concept. They were so far gone, that they actually falsified combat operations reports from the Air Commandos that proved their effectiveness and discredited the "faster/higher" concept that the big shots were building their careers on. (The higher/faster struggle also was behind the bright idea of not putting any guns or cannons on the F-4 since they believed missile technology would make dogfighting obsolete). While the politicos rightly take the lion's share of the blame for the Vietnam fiasco, books like "Air Commando One" show that the military also made their share of mistakes. As far as the F-22 is concerned, on paper it should be the greatest thing, since Orville and Wilbur at Kitty Hawk, however I always get nervous when a new design is touted as a "one size fits all" solution to every problem and every role. I'm old enough to have followed the F-111 from its start as a Navy/Air Force joint fighter/bomber. How dumb does it sound now to think that an F-111 could be a carrier launched plane?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQOQWAKnB1Q yeah can see how the Brits were burning the yanks in the street, god we are such monsters!
Yes, I know that when I am playing any game of strategy I can think of no better situation than being surrounded.
I wasn't very clear on this: the Eagle and the Falcon were examples of things going right- thanks to Colonel Boyd's tireless efforts at the Pentagon. The planes that came before that were the gold plated monsters.
You and Darkening really need to look at a map. First is the Persain Gulf. Second Jordan. Third Kuwait. Fourth Afghanistan. Fifth Saudi Arabia. Sixth if we had no choice but to use them as a base: Israel. We are not surrounded and trapped. We are in the center and unlike other situations we could mop the floor with anyone in that region.
At the limit for occupation? Maybe. At the limit for inflicting devastation on a massive scale? Not even remotely. And before Aurora or some other harpy accuses me of getting off over that, I'm only stating a fact.
Congress and Bush have done no favors for the F-22, whose fate was on the knife's edge for years. As late as 2004 or so there were rumors that the program would be canceled, which would have been a catastrophe. As a result of cutbacks, the aircraft has become more expensive per unit, which has contributed to its unpopularity among beancounters, which has caused fewer units to be authorized, and so on, in a vicious spiral. At this juncture, the Air Force has received authorization for only about 380 F-22's, leaving it short of what it wants. Thus, F-22's will share the honor of frontline fighter with the F-15 for the foreseeable future. The F-22 is such a fantastic improvement over any other aircraft of its kind that the U.S. refuses to allow it to be exported. By contrast, the F-15 has been operated by a number of countries other than the United States, including not only Israel, but also Japan, Saudi Arabia, and South Korea. The F-35, the replacement for the F-16, was intended from the start to be exported (or jointly operated) to the United Kingdom and other NATO countries. The Air Force's contingency plan in case the F-22 is held up remains focused on an uprated F-15. The most powerful F-15 yet is the F-15K, designed for export to South Korea. The model the USAF could order would be an improvement on the F-15K incorporating the latest avionics and other improvements. However, the F-15 remains far behind the F-22 not only for reasons of Stealth, but also because of its lack of supercruise and maneuverable thruster capabilities. It is generally believed that the F-15 may be overmatched by the latest in Russian fighter aircraft.
If the idiot politicans got rid of the F-22 then it would be a huge disaster for the Air Force. This is a plane which in compentent hands can sweep anything out of the sky. The F-15, a great fighter in its own right, can no longer be guareented to go toe to toe with enemy fighters and sweep those skys clean. The F-15 is not facing the prospect of Mig-21 and Mig-35. You've got the Mig-29 and the SU-37 which is an awesome plane as well.
True, dat. Luckily, the F-22 is safe from cancellation, at least for the time being. I'm not generally supportive of a large defense budget -- only an efficient one. The way that the F-22 program has been handled has contributed greatly to its cost. For that we can lay the blame squarely on the Republican Congress, which in this as well as in many other things has been penny wise and pound foolish.
Worse than you think. The AF asked for a minumum of 381 aircraft. Minimum. To date, Congress refuses to authorize any more than 183. The AF is hopeful for more, but nobody's counting on it. Worse, if the construction program ends, two things will happen (if I can remember this right): 1) the production line witll be dismantled, making it enormously expensive to start up again if they authorize more, thus making each new airplane even more expensive. 2) Some production tools will be shared with the F-35. If F-22 production shuts down before F-35 production starts in earnest, it will cost extra to get the F-35 production line started up, thus making the F-35 even more expensive! In a way, the least expensive thing Congress can do is authorize more F-22s and continued production.
I can't imagine things will continue on like this, the Pentagon has to grow a spine at some point. Hell, I'm pretty sure all of the services are livid after the past twenty years. Another revolt of the general staff is long overdue...
I really cannot foresee the Air Force making do with such a low number of airframes, and I believe that it's already committed to maintaining a mix of F-22's and F-15's to help make up the difference. I was at a local bookstore recently and had the opportunity to leaf through a military aviation magazine with a cover article on the F-22's performance during the latest Red Flag maneuvers. The F-22's slaughtered the competition, although "a few" F-22's were overwhelmed by the sheer numbers of "enemy" aircraft (who were given unfair advantages by the terms of the exercise). The article concluded that the enemies of America had a great deal more to fear because of the newly demonstrated capabilities of our pilots in these birds. It was this article that said that the Air Force would maintain a fleet of Eagles to be mixed with the Raptors for the foreseeable future.
I agree, but don't take any offense. It is not that Americans have forgotten the rest of the worlds contribution to OEF, it is that the US has completely forgotten it is going on. Just look at the ammount of discussion in the RR that it gets, and this is the international/political aware segment of our population. Ask any OEF veteran, Afghanistan is the forgotten war.
[action=Ancalagon]prepares for the [/action] The truth is, we don't need that many fighters at the moment. The US has so much of an edge both technologically and numerically over any threat that are doing fine on that front. The funds would much better be spent on the low-intensity conflicts that we are fighting right now and most likely will be fighting in the near future than some far distant future threat that might materialize and we might go to war with.
